America Public University Illegal Immigration Into United States Case Analysis Attached are two BIA cases (CAL.pdf and AEM.pdf). Please pick one of the att

America Public University Illegal Immigration Into United States Case Analysis Attached are two BIA cases (CAL.pdf and AEM.pdf). Please pick one of the attached cases to review. Please submit your essay in Word document in this assignment.

Your essay should include the following information: Who were the parties? What happened that led to this case? What lower courts heard the case and what did they decide? What did the Board of Immigration Appeals decide and what was their reasoning? What cases did the Court use to help them with their decision? What was the end result of the case? Has the case had impact on society or do you think it will in the future?

Your paper should be 1-2 pages long. Points will be deducted for spelling, grammar and punctuation errors. Please proofread your work – most errors are easily corrected by proofreading. When citing legal cases the case names should be done in standard “Blue Book” format. Example:
York v. Smith, 65 U.S. 294 (1995). For further information see https://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/ and look under the “How to Cite” section.

Best of luck with the assignment and please let me know if you have any questions. Interim Decision #3305
Interim Decision #3305
In re C-A-L-, Respondent
Decided February 21, 1997
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) An alien, who served as a soldier in the Guatemalan Army, has not established a
well-founded fear of persecution by the guerrillas on account of one of the five grounds enumerated in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A) (1994), where he claims that his personal file from the army fell into the
hands of the guerrillas, who sought to recruit him for his artillery expertise.
(2) An alien has failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of country-wide persecution
from the guerrillas in Guatemala where he was able to live for more than 1 year in different
areas within the country, including an area well known for its guerrilla operations, without
experiencing any problems from the guerrillas.
FOR RESPONDENT: Patricia M. Spicer, Esquire, Alexandria, Virginia
FOR THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE: Linda A. Dominguez,
Assistant District Counsel
BEFORE: Board En Banc: DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA, HEILMAN, HOLMES,
HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, FILPPU, COLE, MATHON, and GUENDELSBERGER, Board
Members. Dissenting Opinions: SCHMIDT, Chairman; ROSENBERG, Board Member.
HURWITZ, Board Member:
The respondent’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision dated
October 13, 1995, finding him deportable as charged, denying his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation under sections 208 and
243(h), of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and
1253(h) (1994), respectively, but granting him voluntary departure, will be
dismissed.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The respondent is a 27-year-old male, native and citizen of Guatemala,
who entered the United States without inspection on December 15, 1991. The
respondent was a soldier in the Guatemalan Army from November 1, 1986,
to April 30, 1989. He was trained as an artillery specialist.
754
Interim Decision #3305
The respondent testified that, as a soldier, he was sent on separate occasions into the mountains to combat guerrilla forces. He was involved in various confrontations in which several soldiers and guerrillas were killed. On
March 15, 1989, the respondent and his unit were leaving a conflict area in
the mountains when their convoy of trucks was ambushed by guerrillas.
Many soldiers were wounded and killed in this incident.
In addition, as a result of the ambush, certain military files fell into the
hands of the guerrillas. These files contained personal information about five
soldiers who would be discharged in the Spring of 1989, including their
names, civilian addresses, and military experience. The respondent’s file was
among this lot.
The respondent was discharged as planned and went to live with his father.
In September 1989, the respondent came across a friend who was one of the
four soldiers discharged from the army with him. This friend informed the
respondent that he had received a note from the guerrillas requesting that he
and the other four discharged soldiers present themselves to the guerrillas.
At the time, the respondent had joined a political organization and did not
want to get involved with the guerrillas. The respondent knew the guerrillas
had personal information on him. Fearing the guerrillas would harm him, he
moved to a different area on September 30, 1989.
The respondent returned for a brief visit to see his father in December
1989. At this time he had another discussion with his friend, who told the
respondent that he had received a second note from the guerrillas. His friend
stated that the guerrillas were looking for both of them and that their lives
were in danger. In January 1990, the respondent moved away to yet another
location. In December 1990, the respondent learned from his father that his
friend had been killed by the guerrillas.
Fearing that he was not safe anywhere in Guatemala, the respondent went
to Belize in January 1991. When his tourist visa had expired in April 1991, he
returned to see his father. The respondent’s father had received notes from
the guerrillas asking for the respondent’s whereabouts. Therefore, the
respondent went back to Belize within the same month.
The respondent’s father continued receiving notes through October 1991,
when the respondent returned one last time to see his father before leaving for
Mexico on his way to the United States. Prior to his asylum hearing, the
respondent had communicated with his father, who told him that the guerrillas were still looking for him at the time.
II. THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE’S DECISION
The Immigration Judge questioned the respondent’s testimony about the
guerrillas’ motives in seeking to harm the respondent on account of his service in the Guatemalan Army. The Immigration Judge noted that although
the respondent tried to escape from the guerrillas by leaving his home town,
755
Interim Decision #3305
he moved to an area where he knew from his military experience that the
guerrillas were active. The Immigration Judge stated that it was unreasonable
for the respondent to move there to seek safety from the guerrillas knowing
that they operated in that region.
The Immigration Judge found that the respondent’s move to an area occupied by the guerrillas and his ability to survive for a year without incident
undermined his claim that it was fear of the guerrillas that led him to move
there. If the respondent were truly trying to avoid the guerrillas, it would be
more likely that he would move to a region known to have little guerrilla
presence. The Immigration Judge held that the respondent did not demonstrate past persecution or a reasonable possibility of future persecution and,
therefore, did not meet the definition of “refugee” as provided in section
101(a)(42)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1994). The respondent
appeals from this decision.
III. WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION
The respondent bases his application for asylum on a well-founded fear of
future persecution by the guerrillas in his country due to his past service in the
Guatemalan Army and his failure to join the guerrillas’ efforts. On appeal,
the respondent argues that the evidence in the record compels a finding that
the guerrillas would persecute him on account of his political opinion and
past membership in the military and not solely because they were trying to
obtain information from him or impress him into their service. The respondent argues that the Immigration Judge erred by failing to find that he had a
well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Guatemala.
The burden of proof is upon an asylum applicant to establish that a “reasonable person” in his circumstances would fear persecution upon return to
his native country. Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). In
addition, to be eligible for asylum, the applicant must establish that his
well-founded fear of persecution is “on account of” one of the five grounds
specified in the Act, here, his political opinion or his membership in a particular social group.
In the present case, the respondent claims that he fears returning to Guatemala because the guerrillas have targeted him as a former soldier. He distinguishes himself from the majority of the soldiers by indicating that his
personal file fell into the hands of the guerrillas after an ambush in the mountain region of Guatemala. With this file, he argues, the guerrillas know what
experience he has had in the army and can locate him through his civilian
addresses on record.
Even accepting this as true, the respondent has failed to submit adequate
evidence from which we could reasonably surmise that the guerrillas’ interest in him relates to his imputed political opinion. Instead, the record demonstrates that the guerrillas’ interest in the respondent was not “on account of”
756
Interim Decision #3305
any ground protected in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Act. The respondent
himself testified that the reasons the guerrillas had for contacting him were to
obtain information about the army troops and their actions against the guerrilla groups, and to attempt to recruit him due to his expertise as an artillery
specialist. Without more, we are unable to discern that the guerrillas sought
the respondent for any purpose except those he described. We therefore find
that the respondent has not established facts on which a reasonable person
would fear that danger arises on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421
(1987); Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996). For this reason, the
respondent’s application for asylum must be denied.
VI. COUNTRY-WIDE PERSECUTION
The respondent’s asylum claim must also be denied because he has not
provided any convincing evidence to suggest that his fear of persecution
would exist throughout Guatemala. This Board has found that an alien seeking to meet the definition of a refugee must do more than show a
well-founded fear of persecution in a particular place within a country. He
must show that the threat of persecution exists for him country-wide. Matter
of R-, 20 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 1992); Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA
1985), modified on other grounds, Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439
(BIA 1987).
The Department of State country conditions report on Guatemala states
that the numbers of guerrillas have declined through the years, the guerrillas
are concentrated in remote areas with large Indian populations not easily
accessible to government control, and the threat to the general population has
decreased. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Dep’t of
State, Guatemala-Profile of Asylum Claims & Country Conditions (Aug.
1995). In addition, given the poor infrastructure of the various guerrilla
groups, most low-profile victims of localized harassment by the guerrillas
can relocate away from the area where they experienced problems, instead of
seeking asylum in a foreign country. Id.; see also Rojas v. INS, 937 F.2d 186,
190 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991); Matter of R-, supra. The respondent acknowledged at
the hearing that he was able to move to another area because a different guerrilla group was active in that part of Guatemala.
We do not consider the respondent to be a high-profile victim of harassment by the guerrillas. Moreover, we find that his problems were confined to
his hometown. The respondent testified that he received letters from the guerrillas only at his father’s home. Although the guerrillas may have been looking for him, he experienced no problems while he was living in other areas of
the country. In fact, he was able to live and work in another location for a year
without incident despite the well-known guerrilla operations in that area of
757
Interim Decision #3305
the country. We therefore, find that conditions in Guatemala are not such that
the respondent would have a well-founded fear of returning to that country.
Having failed to meet the “well-founded fear of persecution” standard
required for a grant of asylum, the respondent has also failed to meet the
higher “clear probability” standard required for withholding of deportation.
See Matter of Mogharrabi, supra. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER:
Pursuant to the Immigration Judge’s order
and in accordance with this Board’s decision in Matter of Chouliaris, 16 I&N
Dec. 168 (BIA 1977), the respondent is permitted to depart from the United
States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of this order or any extensions
that may be granted by the district director, and under such conditions as the
district director deems appropriate; and in the event of failure to so depart, the
respondent shall be deported as provided in the Immigration Judge’s order.
DISSENTING OPINION: Paul W. Schmidt, Chairman
I respectfully dissent.
This case presents three issues: (1) whether the respondent has established
a well-founded fear of persecution in Guatemala; (2) whether internal resettlement is a reasonable alternative; and (3) whether the recent peace accords
in Guatemala have an impact on the respondent’s asylum claim. As set forth
below, I conclude that: (1) the respondent has established a well-founded fear
of persecution on this record; (2) the current record is inconclusive on the
internal resettlement alternative; and (3) the case should be remanded to the
Immigration Judge for the parties to explore the impact on the respondent’s
claim of the recent peace accords in Guatemala.
I. WELL-FOUNDED FEAR
The respondent presented credible testimony establishing that he was part
of a group of five former Guatemalan soldiers who fought the guerrillas and
whose personnel files fell into the hands of the guerrillas shortly before the
group of five was discharged from the Guatemalan military in April 1989.
The respondent’s credible testimony also establishes that one member of the
group of five was killed by the guerrillas in 1990 and that threats against the
respondent by the guerrillas continued even after his final departure from
Guatemala in October 1991.
On this record, I conclude that a reasonable person in the respondent’s situation would believe that he has at least a 10 percent chance of being persecuted because of imputed political opinion if returned to Guatemala. See INS
v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). This conclusion is consistent with
Matter of S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996). In S-P-, which involved past
persecution, we found that a respondent need not conclusively show the persecutor’s motive. Rather, we observed that a respondent must present
758
Interim Decision #3305
evidence, either direct or indirect, from which it is reasonable to believe that
the harm was motivated at least in part by the respondent’s actual or imputed
political opinion. That test has been met here.
The majority, in effect, concludes that the guerrillas sought the respondent
exclusively because of his ability to provide strategic information. That conclusion seems unlikely.
The respondent was trained as an artillery specialist. I doubt that the guerrillas would have persisted in pursuing the respondent for 2½ years just to
obtain outdated strategic information on artillery operations or troop deployment. The killing of the respondent’s colleague by the guerrillas in 1990 also
seems inconsistent with a desire to obtain strategic information. The more
plausible conclusion is that the guerrillas pursued the respondent and his colleagues to punish them for their imputed political support of the Guatemalan
Government and their active opposition to the guerrillas’ political aims.
Because a reasonable person in the respondent’s situation would fear persecution if returned to Guatemala, the respondent has established a wellfounded fear of persecution in accordance with Matter of Mogharrabi, 19
I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987).
II. INTERNAL RESETTLEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Turning to the internal resettlement alternative, I agree that it is appropriate to require a refugee who has a reasonable internal resettlement alternative
in his own country to pursue that option before seeking permanent resettlement in the United States. On the other hand, the internal resettlement alternative must be carefully applied. It should not be a routine basis for denying
protection to refugees just because they cannot produce evidence to negate
every possibility of internal relocation. The test for the internal resettlement
alternative is whether, under all the circumstances, internal resettlement is a
reasonable possibility.
Initially, a refugee who fears persecution from a nongovernmental body
should produce some evidence regarding the internal resettlement alternative. However, the burden of proof is shared. Once the respondent has made
some showing on the internal resettlement alternative, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service also should provide evidence on the viability of the
alternative. Cf. Matter of Vivas, 16 I&N Dec. 68, 71 (BIA 1977) (stating that
the burden of going forward with evidence may be placed on the party having
better control or knowledge of the evidence). In fact, much of the documentary information and expert testimony available on this subject would be
more accessible to the Service than to respondents. This is particularly true
because of the existence of the Service’s Resource Information Center. The
internal resettlement alternative should be applied only if the Immigration
Judge or we find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that internal resettlement is a reasonable possibility.
759
Interim Decision #3305
The respondent has made some showing that internal resettlement is not a
reasonable possibility. In that respect, I note that Guatemala is a relatively
small country, a factor we deemed significant in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N
Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). The respondent has shown that the guerrillas possess
personal identifying details gleaned from his captured military file, and that
they possess both the means and the inclination to continue to pursue and
harm him. Additionally, the record contains the 1995 country profile from
the U.S. Department of State, which establishes that considerable guerilla-instituted violence continues to plague Guatemala. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Dep’t of State, Guatemala-Profile of
Asylum Claims & Country Conditions (Aug. 1995) [hereinafter Profile]. The
respondent also testified that he had to move several times to avoid the guerrillas before leaving Guatemala for good in 1991.
On the other hand, the Service can point to evidence in the Profile indicating that guerilla strength in Guatemala is diminishing and that guerrillas are
concentrated in more remote areas. The Profile states in conclusory terms
that low-profile victims of localized guerilla harassment may seek internal
relocation. However, it is by no means clear that an individual in the respondent’s situation can be characterized as “low-profile” or that credible death
threats can be characterized as “harassment.” The Service also can point out
that the respondent lived for a year in a known guerilla-infested area without
suffering any actual harm.
It is also possible that the Immigration Judge’s negative consideration of
the internal resettlement alternative was colored by his conclusion that the
respondent did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.
I find the current record inconclusive with respect to the internal resettlement alternative. Because this is a question with potential life or death significance, I would remand the case to the Immigration Judge to have this matter
redetermined under the criteria set forth above. See Matter of H-, 21 I&N
Dec. 337 (BIA 1996) (remanding to give the parties an opportunity to further
develop the record).
III. CHANGED CONDITIONS—IMPACT OF RECENT
PEACE ACCORDS
In addition, I take administrative notice that on December 29, 1996, a
peace accord was signed by the Government of Guatemala and the guerillas.
See Committees on Foreign Relations and International Relations, 105th
Cong., 1st Sess., Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996 (Joint
Comm. Print 1997). Because the hearing before the Immigration Judge
occurred in October 1995, the impact of the peace accords was neither considered by the Immigration Judge nor addressed by the parties. Interestingly,
neither party has brought this potentially significant new development to our
attention through supplemental filings.
760
Interim Decision #3305
The change in country conditions potentially affects the respondent’s
well-founded fear and the reasonableness of internal resettlement….
Purchase answer to see full
attachment